Monday, 13 December 2010

Climate Change

I intend to come back to this strip and rewrite some of the first half, in order to make the science clearer. I'm sure there will be a few spelling errors and suchlike. Feel free to point them out, but keep in mind that I've been staring at many of these pages for weeks, to the point where even the word 'and' looks funny to me. I shall be adding on references to this strip over the coming few days. Thanks to Albert the Knowledge Penguin for his help.

Note: added Jan 2012. A slightly different version of this strip will appear in my book Science Tales, out from Myriad Editions in April this year. This is a book of comic strip essays on controversial science subjects that include: chiropractic, evolution, the so-called Moon-landing hoax, the MMR/Andrew Wakefield vaxination scandal, and homeopathy. Read all about it here.

A few references. More will be posted shortly.

Superb New Yorker piece about the Koch Brothers and their involvement with the far right.

I am blown away. You've done it again, Daryll. You've brought clarity to the chaos and made it clear for even the most strident denier that their positions are funded, directly or indirectly, by the carbon industry. Well done, sir! Well done, indeed!

I was with you until the last few panels. There's not really any reason to believe that increased temperature will destroy natural resources like the Amazon. Some have even speculated that global food and crop production will increase.Granted, coastal flooding is a bad thing as far as humans are concerned, but the rest of the planet may or may not be affected.

Also, there's a fundamental difference between Russia's heat wave and England's winter. Russia's heat wave was, as far as anyone can tell, genuinely unprecedented. Definitely the hottest since historical records began, and probably the hottest for thousands of years.

NASA recently pointed out that Plant O2 production due to higher CO2 levels may limit global warming from reaching catastrophic levels. All in all it is very hard to know what is going to happen, but the idea that humans are causing warming is still just as valid.

Alarmist speech is not appropriate and just fuels any deniers argument that climate change supporters are pushing a political agenda.

The ideas of conservation and renewable resources should not be seen as the only way to save us from global warming. Instead these ideas should be supported because they are the morally responsible thing to do for our planet.

I was glad to see these words: "It's one thing to be skeptical, but it's another thing entirely to believe in a conspiracy."

I'm fed up with the folks who want to burn legitimate, skeptics who are free of politics at the stake like witches.

Why am I still skeptical of human-created climate change? One reason is compelling scientific work suggesting that cosmic rays affecting cloud production may be responsible for the long-term, extended bouts of heating and cooling seen in Earth's history. Check out "The Chilling Stars: A cosmic view of climate change."

All said, I don't think it's impossible that humans are affecting climate. However, I think the existence of other reasonable possibilities means that I have to be skeptical that humans are the sole reason for it.

You out the boot into Koch for funding skeptic groups but ignore the millions poured into green groups!!

1. WWF, (nasty eugenicist Julian Huxley was founder) had revenue of $250m in 2010. $50m of that from government and corporate sponsorship and grants.

2. DFiD in the UK alone funded green groups to the tune of $18m.

As for the media, most organisations are on message that AGW is an immutable truth. Taking the BBC for example, it formally adopted a position that AGW was correct and that it did not have to give a platform to skeptics.

As for the Climategate emails, aside from the millions in funding the CRU gets it also got a whitewash from the supposed inquiries into its nasty behaviour. Take Muir Russell, In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. Phil Jones of CRU wrote to Mann that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." Mann then wrote to Jones "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

Was Mr. de Freitas interviewed by Muir Russell. No. Were any of the wronged parties? No. You call that an inquiry?

The truth is that it is the wealthy greens (some of whom have made personal fortunes from AGW) in the West who are making the decisions for the rest of humanity. They should be ashamed of themselves, was it not enough that their movement got DDT banned resulting in the deaths of many millions of poor Africans. I doubt it, given the roots of the green movement are eugenics and population control I bet most don't really care. And if you think that eugenics isn't really at the root of all the Green movement take a look at this scientist at Cancun and his adoring fans:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGTk4S_HV2w&feature=player_embedded

Frankly, I bet most Greens are not even ashamed of their desire to kill off large sections of the population.

Dressing all this up with a cute cartoon that appears to be balanced but is in reality a hatchet job is just grist to the mill for a denialist like me.

Yeah the underlying reason for the cold wasn't talked about much in the media (I only heard it once on the TV) I think that maybe because the news may have thought "groan, we're gonna have to explain what the gulf stream is before we say where it's gone, lets not bother, and show a juicy crash or a snowman instead"

The fact is though here in britian we're up at the same latitude as Poland, bits of russia, and Canada.Whilst we're knows for our rain other places at the same latitude are known for three foot snow!

Here's a nice picture of Britian without the gulf stream from last year

I was reading along, amazed at how literate this was... until I came upon the panel that said, "...comprised of..." and that stopped me, as it always does. No matter how much leeway is granted to popular usage, I cannot abide replacing 'composed of' with 'comprised of' -- but that's probably just me.

I think the panel reading, "Six independent investigations reached the same conclusions" should be rewritten, as it immediately follows "As if scientists had manipulated research in order to support preconceived ideas about climate change." This could easily be misread that 'six investigations confirmed that scientists had manipulated research' - even though you go on to dispel that.

Very good. One clarification for early on. You talk about water vapour, CO2 and methane keeping the planet warmer and then say the quantity of these gases has increase sharply since the Industrial Revolution.

Water vapour is responsible for the majority of the natural 33C warming effect, but the quantity of water vapour in the atmosphere has not increased significantly, only CO2 and CH4. The slide needs to say "the quantity (or concentration) of some greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increase sharply."

This isn't to weaken the case for climate change. It just reflects that all you need is a 10% increase on top of the natural warming to produce a very damaging 3C increase in average global temperatures.

I too was interested in the cosmic ray theory. but that came a few years ago as plausible, and no longer is for the simple reasons that no correlation between warming and cosmic rays have been found.

It was a hypothesis, a valid one, but one that the observations do not match.

@LH

your entire comment is completely ignorable

" I bet most Greens are not even ashamed of their desire to kill off large sections of the population"

denialists seem unable to help themselves.

For me, climategate should have been thus great place to confirm all the previous conspiracy theories. There should have been emails from Al Gore telling the scientists what to say. George Soros, should have been in there asking who to give money to. etc etc.

None of that was there, denialists still continue to claim conspiracy and no inquisition will be good enough for them. Hence they go from being a good feedback mechanism for science to being an ignorable bunch of loons.

* There is no evidence that the emails were stolen and very good grounds to believe they were leaked.

* When seen *in context* the emails are *far more damning* than out of context. Claiming otherwise is an ignorant rhetorical tic and impossible to substantiate, particularly by means of speculation about email exchanges that *haven't* been released.

* The short-timescale instrumental temperature record does not take correct account of UHI. It is not possible to replicate the canonical papers on which the supposed influence of UHI is based. The metadata for the stations involved in the most influential stations has been "lost" if it ever existed.

* The "march of the thermometers" has ensured that any errors / uncertainly that may exist as a result of incorrect UHI normalisation will be widespread.

* NONE of the "inquiries" looked at the science, despite claims in the mass media that they would / did. They were ridiculous damage limitation exercises with no true independence.

* Predictions based on GCM's are almost totally lacking in skill and are built presupposing the very relationships they are touted as "proving".

There is no reason to believe that we are seeing anything other than a minor anthropogenic influence on natural cycles.

There are very good reasons for looking at alternative energy, reducing pollution, reducing waste. AGW isn't one of them.

A brilliant effort so far, except you are too kind with this: "They are motivated by an ideological commitment to minimal governments and free markets." In fact, they are quite content to have government intervene on their behalf. I think they are motivated by their own short term interests, as well as a lack of concern for their legacy.

When describing the deniers you use the term "militantly right wing" and use a picture representing the US Republican Party. By doing this you are perpetuating a problem: namely that accepting the science is "leftwing" but denying it or being sceptical is "rightwing". Although deniers are clearly driven by ideology, it is simply not true that this is actually a "left-right" issue. Many Conservatives (especially here in the UK) accept the science of climate change and support methods to deal with it. There are even, I have no doubt, a smattering of leftwingers who think it's all a scam and part of some Globalist conspiracy.

It's important not to present the idea that accepting the science is an issue of ideology: science is beyond ideology (indeed in many ways is the antithesis of it). There are numerous reasons for someone on the right, for instance, to support efforts to combat climate change (not least self-preservation which is what much of this might come down to) and accepting that man-made CO2 contributes to climate change does not necessitate "socialism" any more than accepting that dumping toxic waste into a stream that feeds a well does. Essentially, apart from the free-market absolutists, conservatives have nothing to really fear from accepting the science other than a certain amount of responsibility to go with the many others most accept.

Climate change is an important issue, that means conservatives on both sides of the atlantic need to be won over. Equating "denier" and "rightwing" is just going to make them defensive and think that by accepting science they are moving "to the left". It's important to show that this is not really the case. Dealing with this problem requries committed, intelligent solutions from everyone, regardless of ideology.

Equating "denier" and "rightwing" is just going to make them defensive and think that by accepting science they are moving "to the left".

You're a bit late to the party. The hysterical deniers of the right wing are the ones getting upset about the science, because it goes against the interests of current polluters.

What you suggest is the equivalent of offering a birth control pill to a pregnant woman.

The damage is done. They ARE denialists. They ARE right-wing. And one of the hallmarks of the type is that nothing blasts the stupid out of their mind. They are immune to reason, evidence, and civil discourse. Talking pleasantly to them and being nice to them either has them thinking you a fool, or makes them hate you. Or both.

No longer lying about what they are enables sensible people to openly pity them, ridicule them and shame them into facing reality.

Those things work with stupid of that caliber. Reason and evidence and politeness rarely do.

Sorry to see denialist tropes and claims arising here. The State Department was aware of earlier efforts to hack climate scientists' computers, according to a Wikileaks document, Andrew Weaver's group in Victoria, B.C. was also targeted by a computer theft, and the notion of an inside leak has been dismissed by the investigators at East Anglia. In context, the emails are completely innocent-- bluster to the contrary notwithstanding. I invite anyone who doubts this to have a look at them, read the context and make their case. The UHI myth persists on WUWT, but careful checks (eliminating sites from the list, comparing windy nights-- when any UHI effects would be minimal-- with calm nights, etc.) have all confirmed the reliability of the record. And GCMs have substantial skill. Can MrSean2K provide a credible citation for any of these canards?

I'd hoped to resolve the "gasses" vs. "gases" question by a reference to the great chemist:

Sir James DewarIs a better man than you are.None of you assesCan liquify gases.

That's how Richard Rhodes has it, anyway, in Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb.Unfortunately, however, a Google search for the authoritative version turns up a dizzying goulash of inconsistent quotes, some with "Professor Dewar", others with "condense gases" (which doesn't even scan) and, most disappointingly, both "gasses" and "gases."

Sorry, gang. As Dewar himself could attest, sometimes your research just doesn't work out the way you wanted.

Those like LH who claim that climate scientists are saying this for money are a sick laugh. The money on the climate-change side is peanuts compared with the billions on the denial side from fossil fuel companies and related businesses.

You may want to refer to a statement from the Geological Society of London that, although the earth has gone through heating and cooling before this, the causes of those changes cannot explain the heating of the past fifty years-- only human activity can.

If this whole paper is too long, skip down to the conclusion:

http://www.geolsoc.org.uk/gsl/site/GSL/lang/en/climatechange

Love the cartoon. With some of the tweaks mentioned, it will be even better.

love when it gets to where it says, "HUMAN ACTIVITY HAS POURED THESE GASSES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE" First and foremost..B.S.!! We do not dump into the atmosphere. We DO dump into the lowest section of our Troposphere ONLY. This CAN affect our lives, but..does NOTHING to this planet than leave a very small layer of dust! What we 'dump' goes into the oxygen layer. We do not use rockets to break into the upper atmosphere with our pollution. Human existence is but a fraction of 1% of the Earth time line. Dont think so highly of yourself to believe we have done all this. The VERY HIGHLY REPORTED volcanic eruption earlier this year from Iceland in ONE DAY dumped more 'waste' into the TRUE atmosphere (due to ACTUAL PROJECTION!) than every car EVER made put together since the first motorized vehicle was created. Then..think about how many active volcanoes are on this planet spewing their filth every day. 2/3 are under the oceans..polluting the water and the air, yet we never even see it! Buying long life light bulbs and green products is only making the rich, richer. It is total politics. They ARE the greedy! Talk to ANY scientists that study the movement of the planets, and they will explain the natural order of the Earth, and the way it rotates around the sun..and the effects it has on this planet. All will be explained if only asked to the RIGHT people...not scientists paid to tell you findings they were told to find. KNOW the TRUTH...do NOT believe everything you are told.

Wow. Just for one thing, the USGS reports that human CO2 emissions are more than 100 times all volcanic CO2 emissions (including undersea volcanoes). No doubt, our anonymous interlocutor will only shout the louder in response-- but perhaps next time s/he will give us a checkable reference or two (I would also love to know how the writer determines who the 'RIGHT' people to ask are...).

The troposphere is a part of the atmosphere. There is no such thing as the "oxygen layer". But I will never understand the mentality of people who want to fight for their right to continue breathing polluted air.

wait, so you are saying that if I don't believe in global warming, I am a right wing republican militarist conspiracy person? What about people like me who don't believe there is a correlation between CO2 and tempature (Google Video "The Great Global Warming Swindle), and that the proposed "solution" to the so called global warming crisis is to trade enron-style derivative contracts -- that does absolutely nothing to reduce co2 levels? The science of global warming had been debunked long ago, see the movie The Great Global Warming Swindle on google video. I don't understand why people are not happy to find out that, no, there is no crisis, and yes we can and should go on with our life and at the same time use solve real pollution problems, instead of wasting money and resources on a phony crisis. The fact that the only argument you bring against people who don't believe in global warming is name calling is a red flag that you are not sincere about the real issue.

Take note, LH. Your earnest attempt at hod-carrying for billionaire oilmen is nothing compared to the histrionics of Anonymous 15 December 2010 00:13.

This particularly tickled me:"think about how many active volcanoes are on this planet spewing their filth every day. 2/3 are under the oceans..polluting the water and the air, yet we never even see it!"

I read until the part where you assert that there are only two kinds of people that disagree with AGW, neither of which are intelligent, knowledgeable scientists who do understand the science and believe they have a scientifically valid basis for disagreeing. At that point I knew you were one of the ignorant ideological followers of the pro-AGW side. FWIW, I still don't know whether the pro-AGW or anti-AGW side is correct, but I know enough not to give any credence whatsoever to those on either side that dismiss the opposition in that kind of intellectually juvenile manner.

But there are indeed only virtually those two kinds of people who don't believe that global warming is caused by man. There is a worldwide scientific consensus on the subject, with only a handful of scientists disagreeing. You can't get much more unanimous than that. However "intelligent, knowledgeable" those scientists may be is beside the point, unless you think that paltry fraction somehow knows something the others don't.

Sorry you have become the target of a lot of nonsense, but hey, if you try hard enough, you can find people who insist the earth is the center of the universe and that a giant man with an awesome beard produced us from a little dirt. Or Adam rather, us ladies are products of an excised rib...

I thought you could add "can be measured in the radiated atmosphere by satellite" after "can be proved to have a greenhouse effect in the laboratory" in your discussion of greenhouse gases. It might make it clear that this is something that _actually_ happens 'in the real world'. Or is that too science-y?

As a geologist (Ph.D., University of Southampton, 1970) I have to question your sincere belief that climate scientists know what they are doing. Perhaps you should define what a climate scientist is and does and what credentials are required to become one.

It is interesting that the majority of professional geologists firmly scorn the concept of AGW as represented by climate scientists because little is actually known about the subject from a geological (i.e. long term) perspective.

Unfortunately the cycle of funding by politicians and special interest groupos to vested research groups remains unbroken. Science should never be fettered in this way, as consensus science is the end result - read IPCC.

Like most geologists I am neither denier nor believer but despair for the situation we find ourselves in. In this "touchy feely" world we need some hard reality and science is not providing it.

It would be useful if you put your considerable talents to work on exposing the very tangible problems the scientific community is facing, rather than focusing on the politics of science. The truth is there to find if only you look for it.

As far as leak vs. hack is concerned, the only citation I can find supporting @Bryson's assertion that a "notion of an inside leak has been dismissed by the investigators at East Anglia", is in the anniversary follow-up by Nature, which states:

“.. More certain is the conclusion that the hack of the server was a sophisticated attack. Although the police and the university say only that the investigation is continuing, Nature understands that evidence has emerged effectively ruling out a leak from inside the CRU, as some have claimed. And other climate-research organizations are believed to have told police that their systems survived hack attempts at the same time.”

Yet there are no citations or references to *actual* evidence, just lots of windbaggery, "understands", "effectively", "believes".

And the frank admission that neither the university 0 or more importantly the police - have made a substantive comment on the matter.

At Bishop Hill, under the title "Some correspondence with Norfolk police", enquiries are made concerning progress, but, as of December 9th the police are coy on the matter.

So it would be useful to everyone if your own references can shed more light on the subject.

In light of the successful last post, the disappearance of my original follow-up looks like a pebkac.

On a hopefully non-controversial note, whatever I feel about the abrupt diversion from even-handedness mid-way through the strip, I thought it had a very appealing visual style and lucid explanation of some of the key points.

I was with you until the last few panels. There's not really any reason to believe that increased temperature will destroy natural resources like the Amazon. Some have even speculated that global food and crop production will increase.

This myth primarily comes from the video The Greening of Planet Earth, created by the Greening Earth Society, a front organization for the Western Fuels Association. The GES also gets money from ExxonMobil. There is no credible biologist who supports the idea that adding gross quantities of CO2 to the atmosphere will render the earth a green and fertile paradise.

And Darryl is perfectly correct that the Amazon rainforest is endangered.

@Darryl

To Naomi Oreskes' Merchants of Doubt I'd add Climate Cover-Up by James Hoggan and Richard Littlemore; the two books cover similar ground and complement each other neatly.

Focalplane says that "It is interesting that the majority of professional geologists firmly scorn the concept of AGW as represented by climate scientists because little is actually known about the subject from a geological (i.e. long term) perspective."

Perhaps these 'professional geologists' should have a word with their representative bodies who seem to have a different understanding:

Focalplane says that "It is interesting that the majority of professional geologists firmly scorn the concept of AGW as represented by climate scientists because little is actually known about the subject from a geological (i.e. long term) perspective."

Perhaps these 'professional geologists' should have a word with their representative bodies who seem to have a different understanding:

The Geological Society of America

The American Geophysical Union

The Geological Society (UK)"

This is what I love about science, the more you fight it, the stronger it grows.

You denounce independent "enquiries" as not credible, and then link to an individual's independent inquiry just two posts later.

I don't understand why your manufactured "hack vs. leak" debate is supposed to be noteworthy, because no matter how the emails were released, the scientists were completely exonerated.

I also don't know where you come from that the words "effectively" and "understands" mean the opposite of what they do. But I guess if you can position yourself against the worldwide scientific consensus then you can surely make yourself believe anything.

You're getting stronger with each of these skeptical cartoons you produce. Bravo! So far I've seen the ones on homeopathy, Wakefield, and now AGW - your best effort yet IMO. I'm going to promote this one at my workplace, where we have a lot of young, bright sparks. Yet many of them have no discernible opinion at all on this issue.

I'm specifically addressing @Bryson's claim that the "notion of an inside leak has been dismissed by the investigators at East Anglia" as a starting off point - one thing at a time.

@Bryson failed to cite any references for his claim. The latest one I've found is couched in vague terms and itself offers no rationale for making or passing on the claims.

In other words @Brysons claim on this point is totally unsubstantiated and merely asserted.

The inquiries were not independent.

Certainly things started to look better when the most flagrant attempts to dope the participants with people who had previous long association with UEA / CRU and a well publicised AGW bias were removed.

But that rather hopeful sign didn't last long.

Allowing members of the CRU themselves to determine the scope of the enquiries, and the range of background material should make it obvious to all but the dullest mind that "exoneration" was the only possible outcome.

The first third of this strip provides a succinct summary of much of the science behind climate change. There are a couple of scientific mistakes, most notably that the rise in temperatures has not been "consistent" since 1880. The documented 17 cm sea level rise since 1880 has unfortunately been exaggerated to show an adult standing waist-deep in water (this is a frequent tactic of climate alarmists). The projected sea level rise in the next century is about 1 meter, which will similarly not leave an adult underwater as depicted. Al Gore commits a similar scientific sin on the cover of his latest book, in which much of Florida and ALL of Cuba (highest point 2000 m) is shown to be underwater.

The second two thirds of the strip, unfortunately, go off the scientific rails and attempt to prove the existence of the mythical "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" through much political propaganda. First, the US Republican Party is not a militant right-wing organization as suggested, and the portrayal of it as such says much about the ideological objectivity, or lack thereof, of the rest of the strip.

Contrary to what is presented, there are many within the IPCC who hold a wealth-redistributionst worldview. For example, Ottmar Edenhofer, chair of IPCC Working Group III, was recently quoted (Google translation from German), "But one must say clearly that we distribute by climate policy de facto the world's wealth." (Source: http://www.nzz.ch/nachrichten/politik/schweiz/klimapolitik_verteilt_das_weltvermoegen_neu_1.8373227.html, 2nd sentence of 5th response.)

Furthermore, the US TEA Party movement is not funded by big business or big oil as a climate change denial front group. The TEA Party grew out of opposition to Obama's proposal for taxpayer-funded bailouts of people unable to pay their mortgages. It has since grown in opposition to high taxes, wasteful spending, and excessive regulation.

Darryl is correct in noting that right-wing groups accept donations from businesses and other wealthy entities; what is omitted is that left-wing groups do so as well. For example, both the Huffington Post and the Center for American Progress have hosted commentary by Michael Mann. Both are also ideological left-wing organizations supported by George Soros and other progressives intent on wealth redistribution. Providing commentary in such forums can greatly harm one's perceived objectivity.

In the vilification of big business, Darryl unfortunately neglects to mention that the purpose of ANY business is to turn a profit. If profits disappear, so does the business. It is widely accepted among economists that increased taxes and regulations harm the economy. Note that I am NOT saying that ALL regulations are bad. I also wish to remind Darryl that free markets (which he also vilifies) were largely responsible for the rise of modern western civilization. If you doubt this premise, please compare living standards in East and West Germany circa 1990.

Finally, the claim that 25% of all species WILL go extinct is scientifically preposterous, for several reasons: 1) We do not know exactly how many species exist on earth (and just recently discovered a type of life based on arsenic, thereby demonstrating our ignorance); 2) We do not know with with certainty how much the earth will warm in the next 100 years (note that this is an arbitrary time scale). Will it be 2C? 4C? More? Less? We do not know; there is inherent uncertainty in this prediction; and 3) We do not know the temperature thresholds of a majority of the known species on earth.

Hopefully, I have been able to show that Darryl has presented insightful facts on climate science, but has unfortunately mixed that with ideological spin and political half-truths. Similarly, select scientists and most non-scientists on BOTH sides routinely inject politics into a scientific debate.

For the record, I am an economic conservative who holds a Ph.D. in meteorology from a prestigious American university.

"Well, I stopped right after you repeated that nonsense about the rate of sea level change doubling in the last decade. The rest of it was equally well-researched, I'm sure."

Fail.

The increase in the rate of sea level change is the conclusion of a published paper from 2006, the data from which are publicly available on the web. I'll leave finding it as an exercise -- perhaps that will give you some practice in learning how critical thinking actually works.

As for the Climategate emails, aside from the millions in funding the CRU gets it also got a whitewash from the supposed inquiries into its nasty behaviour. Take Muir Russell, In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. Phil Jones of CRU wrote to Mann that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

So what? The methodological problems in the Soon and Baliunas paper are well documented. It was a bad paper that never should have passed peer review, with an unsupported conclusion that has since been refuted by better research. Mann et al. were right to chastise the journal for a failure of quality control.

Mann then wrote to Jones "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

And now seven years later, the journal is doing just fine. Some conspiracy.

As an illustrator and ex ad person, my best compliment is to say I wish I had created this strip. Running through the comments, I see the phenomenon George Monbiot wrote about recently. Deniers up the yin-yang.

Thanks for the great work, and don't let the nit-pickers get you down. It's a comic!!

Ian, the ridiculous claims about the increase in the rate of change for sea level is an excellent proxy for the sloppy science the warmists are spouting. To begin with your paper only shows a small increase in the rate, not a doubling. Big difference. Second, your paper is obsolete, We now have excellent satellite data that goes back to 1993. There is no increase in the rate. In fact, the last five years show a small decrease in the rate of change. The statement is utter nonsense, made worse by many repetitions. Here's the graph. Where's the increase? http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_global_sm.jpg

I find the whole controversy sadly amusing - sad because the effects are so important, amusing because of the contortions of thinking that happen.

One of the contortions comes to play when deniers talk about all of the money that might come into play if carbon trading takes off or if renewable energy mandates get passed. They also imply that climate scientists have sold their souls for research grants.

They completely ignore the amount of money already controlled by industries that together dump about 30 billion tons of waste products into the atmosphere every year without charge. It is hard to get one's mind around the huge numbers involved - ExxonMobil, a company that controls just 3-4% of the global market for hydrocarbons, sold $440 BILLION worth of product last year and made more than $40 billion in after tax, after generous depletion allowance PROFIT. (The company's free cash flow was more than $100 billion.) That is only one of many sources of funds for anyone willing to produce research that denies reality.

I was also amused to see a comment from a geologist who criticized your work and called into question the whole field of climate science. While I am reluctant to denigrate an entire branch of science, I'd like to point out that more than 80% of the professional geologists in the world make their living by providing information to the coal, oil and gas extraction industries.

Some geologists may study rocks and sediment because those topics fascinate them; most of them study rocks and sediment in order to find the valuable products that their employers sell into the world fossil fuel market.

It is also worth thinking about the role of the advertiser supported media in shaping public opinion. How many ads do you think you see on a weekly basis from BP, ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and minors like Citgo, Hess, Valero, etc.?

Why do you think you need to turn to a publication like the New Yorker to find a good, penetrating article about the role of fossil fuel money in the climate change discussion? Though the ads that the petroleum industry runs do not deny climate change directly, I am certain that the money they spend has the ability to make journalists reluctant to do hard hitting exposes on their activities in supporting deniers and skeptics.

Finally, the other thing that sadly amuses me is that there is a capable, abundant, affordable emission-free alternative to burning coal, oil and natural gas. Nuclear energy has proven itself in the most challenging energy applications as a better than oil source of heat.

That energy source really complicates the discussion since many of the people who are reflexively opposed to big oil, coal and gas try to put nuclear energy into the same category. It really confuses them to realize that the science supports the reality that fission is safe, clean and cheap - if you do not let fossil fuel inspired regulators make it too hard and too expensive. It is really amusing to see how some people on the left think that Amory Lovins is on their side when he tries to tell us that all we need is conservation, wind and solar. None of those sources has any hope of harming the market power of the fossil fuel industry or making a dent in the amount of CO2 dumped each year.

Nuclear fission, on the other hand, already makes a difference and could make a huge difference if some of the restrictions were lifted.

Your blatant double standard, denouncing independent research and then linking to the very same, was the point, not my grammar jibe.

Hack or renegade leak, the science is not in question. Of course exoneration was the only outcome! The very comic we are replying to indicates that just 2.5% of scientists doubt that mankind is causing global warming.

Just who do you suggest should chair these investigations? There was an inquiry done by MPs (which exonerated them) and an inquiry done by professors of completely unrelated universities (which exonerated them), and a final tripartite one which, of course, exonerated them. Do you really believe the scientists smeared by this nonscandal were actively colluding with their investigators to achieve an agreeable result?

My comment was apparently too long, so I posted it on Atomic Insights.

Here is an abbreviated version. Advertiser supported media outlets are reluctant to be too hard hitting with regard to exposing the fossil fuel influence on politics partly because fossil fuel companies purchase a lot of advertising space and have done so for many decades.

Many of the climate change deniers with scientific credentials - like Focalplane who commented above - happen to be geologists. Here is what he said about his colleagues:

It is interesting that the majority of professional geologists firmly scorn the concept of AGW as represented by climate scientists because little is actually known about the subject from a geological (i.e. long term) perspective.

What interests me is that more than 80% of the professional geologists in the world make their money selling services to coal, oil and gas companies who want to find the valuable materials under the layers of rocks and sediments that the geologists learn about in school.

It is a bit fatiguing to be constantly linked to "right wing" because I doubt the solutions being offered for global warming. I feel very scammed by the constant media barrage, 24/7 that we are to "blame" for the earth burning up, but we can save ourselves if we only recycle. For the last 10 years but especially the last 5 I have nearly screamed when I see “green” just because it is so over the top. Oh, yes, mock me, beat me, ignore me.

So, for the sake of argument, I want to concede everything about CO2 to you. I also concede that Oil and Coal have vast financial interests. Given.

But, proposed solutions seem to be limited to doing less with less. Becoming poorer and killing large numbers of people because they "impact the earth negatively." Solutions like wind and solar which actually sell natural gas. Solutions that transfer vast amounts of wealth from one wealthy person to another.

I am interested that in your whole comic you do not mention Nuclear. Not even once. Why not? Why do such great scientists who can do the fantastic computer modeling that tells us we are to blame use such poor math when it comes to solutions?

I am a committed free market capitalist - just wish I had some capital to work with today. But I deeply resent the segregation into a denialist camp that cannot see the science. Excuse me, but it is not the science but the economics I am protesting. I have many friends around the world who live marginal lives. Your solutions will kill them more quickly than global warming will.

I am fatigued with being told quit condescendingly who is paying for my opinions. When you begin to promote reasonable solutions – that actually solve the problem – I will consider your opinion a bit more valid. In the mean time the logical end of most of the solutions is for everyone to die more quickly than they already will. I do hope I don't die in the 8 inches of water that wikipedia says the oceans have risen in the last 140 years. - again – over the top – no real solutions just fear.

Finally, can I point out that we will all die eventually? Most of us in some painful way. What are you really trying to “save?” For me, I would like my friends to experience the same level of energy abundance I have enjoyed and the many resulting benefits. I support nuclear power. I do not support killing people to save the planet.

It is a bit fatiguing to be constantly linked to "right wing" because I doubt the solutions being offered for global warming. I feel very scammed by the constant media barrage, 24/7 that we are to "blame" for the earth burning up, but we can save ourselves if we only recycle. For the last 10 years but especially the last 5 I have nearly screamed when I see “green” just because it is so over the top.

So, for the sake of argument, I want to concede everything about CO2 to you. I also concede that Oil and Coal have vast financial interests. Given.

But, proposed solutions seem to be limited to doing less with less. Solutions like wind and solar which actually sell natural gas. Solutions that transfer vast amounts of wealth from one wealthy person to another.

I am interested that in your whole comic you do not mention Nuclear. Not even once. Why not? Why do such great scientists who can do the fantastic computer modeling that tells us we are to blame use such poor math when it comes to solutions?

I am a committed free market capitalist - just wish I had some capital to work with today. But I deeply resent the segregation into a denialist camp that cannot see the science. Excuse me, but it is not the science but the economics I am protesting. I have many friends around the world who live marginal lives. Your solutions will kill them more quickly than global warming will.

Finally, can I point out that we will all die eventually? Most of us in some painful way. What are you really trying to “save?” For me, I would like my friends to experience the same level of energy abundance I have enjoyed and the many resulting benefits. I support nuclear power. I do not support killing people to save the planet.

What a strange way to look at things. Nothing you say is true. The Bible does not predict this. Republicans are not setting up a smaller population on a warmer world. However, I have see videos from greens that advocate blowing people up who disagree with them. I have read many columns from people worried about over population, expressing the need for reducing the population.

Frankly, I don't like high energy prices because they impact the poor the greatest. We need energy solutions - nuclear power - that enable low cost energy for the rest of humanity.

You can also add a page highlighting previous instances where industry attempting to overthrow prevailing scientific opinion. The "smoking isn't bad for you" campaign by the tobacco industry involved many of the same think tanks and people.

To emphasize the idea that industry makes its money through deception? Lies are a part of many human interactions and are not limited to industries, but are shared by governments, and families.

I am disturbed that it is enough to say that only 2.5% of the scientists disagree. At the time of Albert Einstein his theories were widely rejected, especially the idea that there was no "ether." I heard that someone asked Einstein how he would respond to the 600 scientists who felt he was wrong.. he said - it only takes 1 person to be right.

In this case, as above, I have conceded the idea that AGW is caused by our carbon emissions. However, the solution to that - to raise the overall cost of power and to use weak intermittent solutions is non-sense. The Cap and Trade system has not lowed emissions in Europe.

Thanks to everyone, both for and against my comic strip, for your comments. It's impossible for me to respond to everyone personally, due to the huge number of notes left. I do hope you understand. I plan to rewrite much of the strip in the light of comments made. I want to both clarify a few things and make my position clear on others. I'm not an anti-capitalist, I think cap and trade is (probably) a waste of time, and I'm in favour of the use of nuclear power in order to make up the energy shortfall we need.

However, before coming back to the Climate Change strip, I'm obliged to do some work on a childrens' book I've been working on (cue comments about how I should stick to children's work and how it was thought my strip was for kid's anyway). It will be with some relief that I take a break from all this serious-minded stuff. Sheesh!

From 2001 through October, 2010 the atmospheric CO2 increased by 21.8% of the total increase from 1800 to 2001 while the average global temperature has not increased significantly and the trend of the average of the five reporting agencies from 2001 through 2009 is actually down. They all report the results of their measurements on the web so anyone with a computer can check these numbers. The 21.8% CO2 increase is the significant measurement, not the comparatively brief time period.

The factors that resulted in the 20th century global temperature run-up have been discovered. Added atmospheric carbon dioxide plays a minor if not insignificant role.

A simple equation, with inputs of accepted measurements, calculates the average global temperatures since 1895 with 88% accuracy. (87.6% if it is assumed that added atmospheric carbon dioxide has no effect) See the equation, an eye-opening graph of the results and how they are derived in the pdfs at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true (see especially the pdfs made public on 4/10/10 and 6/27/10).

The future average global temperature trend that this equation calculates is down.

As the planet cooling trend continues Climate Scientists grasp at straws to keep the grants coming. Tens of billions of dollars wasted so far. A lot of Climate Scientists are embarrassed now. Some will probably hold out for total humiliation.

It will be a long time before ‘science’ recovers from the AGW Mistake.

@DavidOne misguided attempt at comedy does not prove anything in relation to the science, or the intentions of the environmental movement. I don't think most of them is genuinely anti-human. I think they are simply naive.

I agree that existing and emerging nuclear technologies are the best shot we have at fixing the climate problem. However I don't think it should be put in the comic. A viewer might disagree with the proposed solution and consequently dismiss the arguments in favor of climate change being real.

One reason deniers might not be persuaded by this comic is that it doesn't mention HOW scientists know the carbon dioxide is from our activities. If there was short mention of how the carbon dioxide has specific markers showing that it comes from carbon we release into the atmosphere, it might make things more convincing to the reader.

In general I found the comic good, but covers most of the brief points many other bloggers, scientists and skeptics mention themselves. That's not a bad thing, and obviously still needs to be hammered home and you have limited space, but I found this too light on the how and why to be of any use to fence-sitters.

I myself agree with the scientists, but having seen the arguments, I just don't think this explains it in detail enough. You spend a lot of time talking about the funding of deniers, but the HOW we know it's man made isn't even remotely glossed over in comparison. As seen in the comments above, once you mention conspiracies, people respond with their own theories; but if you discuss more about the actual science and how the findings actually confirm heat-increase-by-humans, then maybe someone will think about that instead.

I will also add that invariably all of the posts on blogs (minus the most notable global warming ones) I've seen discussing how global warming is true and scientific: very few of them actually explain how we know it's us. Everyone skips over that part as if it's obvious or the reader already knows how. Everyone also tends to skip over the part that scientists don't necessarily think it will be catastrophic, just that the rate of increase will make it hard to deal with any changes on a practical level and the fallout from that *may* be catastrophic for communities, the economy or the survival of other species.

(Also, it might help to add that many of the objections that are thought up by deniers have already been considered at length by scientists. Or that disagreement with any political plan to reduce global warming does not discount the science itself)

... David said..."I do not support killing people to save the planet. "

The problem is that if the planet is not suitable for us humans - AKA just another species living on this planet - then humans will die out. It's called extinction; you may have heard about it. The point is that we (all species) are going to die out sooner or later. Most of us would rather later. Which action is going to save the most amount of animals? Save the most amount of money? Doing nothing and dealing with the resulting chaos? Or doing something and minimising the impact? Either way: people will die and money will be spent. I'm sure you would agree with me that doing something is better since it will reduce pollution in the long run; however that sentence of yours is a ridiculous logical fallacy.

One reason deniers might not be persuaded by this comic is that it doesn't mention HOW scientists know the carbon dioxide is from our activities. If there was short mention of how the carbon dioxide has specific markers showing that it comes from carbon we release into the atmosphere, it might make things more convincing to the reader.

In general I found the comic good, but covers most of the brief points many other bloggers, scientists and skeptics mention themselves. That's not a bad thing, and obviously still needs to be hammered home and you have limited space, but I found this too light on the how and why to be of any use to fence-sitters.

I myself agree with the scientists, but having seen the arguments, I just don't think this explains it in detail enough. You spend a lot of time talking about the funding of deniers, but the HOW we know it's man made isn't even remotely glossed over in comparison. As seen in the comments above, once you mention conspiracies, people respond with their own theories; but if you discuss more about the actual science and how the findings actually confirm heat-increase-by-humans, then maybe someone will think about that instead.

I will also add that invariably all of the posts on blogs (minus the most notable global warming ones) I've seen discussing how global warming is true and scientific: very few of them actually explain how we know it's us. Everyone skips over that part as if it's obvious or the reader already knows how. Everyone also tends to skip over the part that scientists don't necessarily think it will be catastrophic, just that the rate of increase will make it hard to deal with any changes on a practical level and the fallout from that *may* be catastrophic for communities, the economy or the survival of other species.

(Also, it might help to add that many of the objections that are thought up by deniers have already been considered at length by scientists. Or that disagreement with any political plan to reduce global warming does not discount the science itself)

... David said..."I do not support killing people to save the planet. "

The problem is that if the planet is not suitable for us humans - AKA just another species living on this planet - then humans will die out. It's called extinction; you may have heard about it. The point is that we (all species) are going to die out sooner or later. Most of us would rather later. Which action is going to save the most amount of animals? Save the most amount of money? Doing nothing and dealing with the resulting chaos? Or doing something and minimising the impact? Either way: people will die and money will be spent. I'm sure you would agree with me that doing something is better since it will reduce pollution in the long run; however that sentence of yours is a ridiculous logical fallacy.

One reason deniers might not be persuaded by this comic is that it doesn't mention HOW scientists know the carbon dioxide is from our activities. If there was short mention of how the carbon dioxide has specific markers showing that it comes from carbon we release into the atmosphere, it might make things more convincing to the reader.

In general I found the comic good, but covers most of the brief points many other bloggers, scientists and skeptics mention themselves. That's not a bad thing, and obviously still needs to be hammered home and you have limited space, but I found this too light on the how and why to be of any use to fence-sitters.

I myself agree with the scientists, but having seen the arguments, I just don't think this explains it in detail enough. You spend a lot of time talking about the funding of deniers, but the HOW we know it's man made isn't even remotely glossed over in comparison. As seen in the comments above, once you mention conspiracies, people respond with their own theories; but if you discuss more about the actual science and how the findings actually confirm heat-increase-by-humans, then maybe someone will think about that instead.

I will also add that invariably all of the posts on blogs (minus the most notable global warming ones) I've seen discussing how global warming is true and scientific: very few of them actually explain how we know it's us. Everyone skips over that part as if it's obvious or the reader already knows how. Everyone also tends to skip over the part that scientists don't necessarily think it will be catastrophic, just that the rate of increase will make it hard to deal with any changes on a practical level and the fallout from that *may* be catastrophic for communities, the economy or the survival of other species.

(Also, it might help to add that many of the objections that are thought up by deniers have already been considered at length by scientists. Or that disagreement with any political plan to reduce global warming does not discount the science itself)

... David said..."I do not support killing people to save the planet. "

The problem is that if the planet is not suitable for us humans - AKA just another species living on this planet - then humans will die out. It's called extinction; you may have heard about it. The point is that we (all species) are going to die out sooner or later. Most of us would rather later. Which action is going to save the most amount of animals? Save the most amount of money? Doing nothing and dealing with the resulting chaos? Or doing something and minimising the impact? Either way: people will die and money will be spent. I'm sure you would agree with me that doing something is better since it will reduce pollution in the long run; however that sentence of yours is a ridiculous logical fallacy.

I agree that one misguided attempt does not by itself paint the whole movement and that the movement has a range of opinions.

As I said, accepting the science does not mean accepting the politics or economics behind solutions.

There is a solution in Nuclear power. It is the experimental movement's (especially greenpeace) rejection of that solution that make people doubt the science.

I tell you I have discovered a huge problem with your car engine. The Crank shaft is broken, the sparkplugs are fouled and the muffler is about to fall off. However, if you buy this special gas additive everything will be repaired. Just poor it in your tank and the engine will repair itself and the sparkplugs will clear and the muffler will be great!.

At that point I am thinking - scam. Why? Because my engine is OK? No, because the solution has nothing to do with the problem.

In this case, the solution - limit the amount of energy by raising it's cost dramatically, and emphasize weak, intermittent expensive solutions (wind / solar). I taught a class in the southern Philippines last year during the drought when the hydro plant that usually produced about 500MW of power could only produce about 30 to 50MW. It is not fun teaching during rolling blackouts.

I watched the price of rice double from 20 pesos a kilo to 35 to 40 pesos a kilo when the price of Oil hit 140 dollars a barrel.

This makes me think - scam. We discovered a source of energy that is virtually unlimited about 60 years ago. Uranium, Plutonium and Thorium (especially thorium) are abundant, and we have the technical capacity to safely use the. "Waste" is fuel that can be burned, or else very very valuable metals that can be recovered.

We do not have a problem with the oil companies or using coal, We have a problem ignoring, limiting, being scared of Nuclear power. When every green group around measures their success by how much money they have cost a nuclear power plant. I feel scammed.

My question is why enemies of life like the Koch brothers and their ilk and the subhuman corporate zombies who've been brainwashed into supporting them are still allowed to continue living when the depths of their evil are already known?

The crimes that they have committed against the Earth are a forfeiture of their right to exist. It is the duty of every good man, woman and child to do everything the can to hasten their deaths. Every second you spend living in comfort while they poison the planet brings all life as we know it closer to extinction.

No more beating around the bush. No more pacifist hippie crap. You may think I'm an extremist, but what's the alternative when facing something as extreme as the death of everything?

First I think someone needs to refer Anonymous to a mental hospital before he goes postal in AZ.Now, you will notice that the fact that the majority of the worlds preiminant scientist do not believe in global warming is not refuted. What is refuted is that the majority of climate change scientist do not believe in global warming, and of course they believe in the nonsense that they propogate.

What your comment implies is this: to determine the current state of the art in climate science, you would take the word of scientists who aren't experts on climate over the word of scientists who are experts on climate.

The reason you would do this is given in your own comment: because you have already reached your conclusion (that the climate scientists are talking nonsense) and are looking for an influential group of people who agree with you.

Though it would be interesting how you know that the "majority of the worlds[sic] preiminant[sic] scientists do not believe in warming"...

(And @Anonymous 2011-01-02 displays all the hallmarks of a troll. I have been a member of the Green Party for a decade or more and have never heard any green campaigner say, or seen them write, anything remotely like this. That might just be because non-violence is a core principle of Green politics.

It's so loooooonnnnnnngggg and boring. And in cartoon format, but it's not funny, which is unforgiveable. This is a perfect example of why the acolytes of the climate change religion fail to communicate their arguments effectively.

I really appreciate the cartoon format and that you distinguish between legitimate climate skeptics and the much more common climate change deniers.

Unfortunately, the media seems intent on giving the deniers equal coverage in the name of balance. The fulcrum should not be moved so much on the scale to accommodate for the weakness of the deniers claims.

well considering a penguin was used to convey a distorted message revealing others distort their messages for people who pay more attention to animations than people, i am still skeptical due to the fact that humans put fourth .008% of the accumulative atmosphere in the atmosphere each year. im not saying this doesnt have an effect on the annual average, it just seems like humans effect the totals far less than people let on.

My detailed criticism of the assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major contributor to warming is at http://earth-climate.com

Firstly, my key point regarding current trends from 1 Jan 2003 to 1 July 2011 as per NASA "sea surface" satellite measurements (the only years that can be plotted on their site) is that there is now a very regular pattern obviously related to the Earth's orbits each year. The statistical probability that this regular pattern is random noise below an increasing trend comparable with that prior to 1998 is absolutely infinitesimal, so the "excuse" that it is just random noise simply does not hold for these last eight and a half (8.5) years. Now, please read the rest of the site ...

"seven cycles of global advance and retreat" I believe you said, how did they happen without us here to do it. And through these core samples, can we judge how fast it happened? And if so, does it compare to the current change rate? Anyway I liked the information but as a sceptic I need answers.

I really appreciate the cartoon format and that you distinguish between legitimate climate skeptics and the much more common climate change deniers.

Unfortunately, the media seems intent on giving the deniers equal coverage in the name of balance. The fulcrum should not be moved so much on the scale to accommodate for the weakness of the deniers claims.

So, you're saying there are two kinds of people who doubt man-made climate change: those who don't have enough information, or those who have dogmatic or ideological reservations, and that there are no other reasons or types of people. In debate, this is called a false dichotomy. Care to clarify?

In the panels near the top, the ones with the topo hat and the high-button shoe, you say, "There has been a consistent global surface temperature rise since the 1880s, and most of this warming has occurred since the 1970s."

I don't understand. If most of it has occurred in the past 40 years, and less of it occurred in the previous 90 years, it has been anything but consistent. I take "consistent" to mean steady, regular, predictable. From what you say, it has greatly accellerated, to the point that a majority of the change has occurred in 30% of the time. Pareto's Law at work here, but what did you REALLY mean to say? Is the rate of warming continuing to speed up?

Other than that, I found this clear, succinct, and ideal for lay people like me. But I would appreciate footnotes and citations.

This is a very interesting blog and so i like to visit your blog again and again. Keep it up.Enjoy when you can, and endure when you must. it ls a good article and love your words , so charming and make people learn a lot , thanks !

Oh you guys are ubber clever. Whatever drives your boat and I suspect it is hedonistic socialism that wants to save the planet and slaughter the unborn. Not for me. You nut balls stole this fine country and killed America.....time to prepare.

This topic is pretty good and the writer's views are unique and not so hard to understand.I like it very much, and by the way I want to share some interesting and very useful websites to you:www.rsorder.com! Iam sure you can find out funny things there.

Selling reward items back. This should encourage you to buy 2007 runescape gold the rewards as and when you can afford them, since you can upgrade them at no extra cost. The only exceptions to this are the resource locators and quest kits (which remain a partial trade-in), and spoils of war. You have to get enough RuneScape money to buy reward items which runescape 3 gold is quite rear in the game.

Graphic Science

Supercrash

Darryl Cunningham

British Artist Darryl Cunningham is a cartoonist. He is the writer and artist on Supercrash (aka The Age Of Selfishness), Psychiatric Tales, Science Tales, and Uncle Bob Adventures.
I'm always available for commissions.
Email: darryltoon(at)gmail.com
Read all about me in this interview.